Thanks to Dr. Richard Lehman for my morning chuckle and for providing a link to a serious concern.
Lehman, in his weekly journal review blog for The BMJ, writes:
“I once sat through a presentation by a Dutch medical entrepreneur in which we were shown the continuous monitoring environment of the future, in which every object around us would tell us about our physiology on a second-by-second basis. Either he had a very dry sense of humour, or he actually wanted this to happen. I think he was wearing some stupid kind of watch which monitors his heart rate, BP, and perhaps arterial oxygen saturation. He looks forward to the day when his lavatory will tell him all sorts of things about his urine and stools. Bring it on. John Ioannidis writes about this burgeoning world of “stealth research” in biomedicine, which is fed on hype, and completely bypasses the truth-seeking, time-consuming processes of real science. As they sow, so let them reap. May they know the exact content of their stools. I prefer my watch just to tell me the time, and to keep a good book handy in the lavatory.”
That link takes you to a piece in JAMA from last week by John Ioannidis of Stanford, “Stealth Research: Is Biomedical Innovation Happening Outside the Peer-Reviewed Literature?” It’s an important article. Excerpts:
“Information about Theranos, a privately held biotechnology company that has developed novel approaches for laboratory diagnostic testing, has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, San Francisco Business Times, Fortune, Forbes, Medscape, and Silicon Valley Business Journal—but not in the peer-reviewed biomedical literature. As of January 5, 2015, a search in PubMed using Theranos as a search term identified affiliations for only 2 unrelated articles coauthored by Theranos Inc employees, although these 2 reports do not offer insights about their company.
Conversely, according to the non–peer-reviewed sources mentioned above, Theranos is “revolutionizing the blood test” and this “is a golden idea”: “the company can run hundreds of tests on a drop of blood far more quickly than could be done with whole vials in the past—and it costs a lot less.” The company is estimated to be worth $9 billion. Test results are “near-instantaneous.” …
…
Theranos is just one example among many for which major efforts and major claims about biomedical progress seem to be happening outside the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
…
However, stealth research creates total ambiguity about what evidence can be trusted in a mix of possibly brilliant ideas, aggressive corporate announcements, and mass media hype.
…
However, unless stealth research adopts more scientific transparency, investors, physicians, patients, and healthy people will not be able to judge whether some proposed innovation is worth $9 billion, $900 billion, or just $9—let alone if the innovation will improve the health and well-being of individuals.”
In the course of our work on this project, we see mass media hype of stealth research all the time. We have pointed it out in the past, and will continue to do so. But Ioannidis provides the context that is important. And Lehman provided the link, the reminder, and the humor. Thanks.
———————–
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The @nytimeswell effort is shown to be unwell once again.
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://t.co/Twzc1Sp8Vw
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Jan Henderson
February 24, 2015 at 2:08 amThere was also a long, admiring article on Theranos in the New Yorker.
Lloyd Adams
February 26, 2015 at 9:50 amExcellent commentary, I have followed Theranos for a number of years always wondering why no one catches on to the reality of the situation.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like